I take everyone's points on board - but I'm still concerned that StC's strategy might actually be hurting more people in the long run than it helps. If the charity props up the Junta, then the long-term consequences for the people of Burma may be greater than if it simply stayed away. In other words, I don't think the star-fish analogy is really applicable here.

Finally, in response to David M: I agree. It does sound horrifically complex. So what on earth should donors do? Just cross their fingers and hope their money gets spent somewhere worthwhile? 

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Whilst I agree that Save the Children could be a lot more transparent about their aid programme in Burma, I think Adam is mistaken when he says that this type of aid should be straightforward. Humanitarian aid is a complete minefield (if you will pardon the expression) - is the aim simply saving lives even if it means working with (and thereby often strenghtening) repressive regimes? Will pumping in vast amounts of money see corruption spiral (eg the Tsunami)? Which lives should be prioritised to save (have a look at the aftermath of the Rwanda genocide for this debate)?
None of them are easy questions, and to be fair the aid NGOs have started to think about them a lot more in recent years.

It seems to be a choice of getting aid through to the people that need it, albeit with some press backlash from being seen to be cosying up to a regime.
Or standing back and sending no aid.

Can't win either way, but trying to get some aid where its needed at least is trying to meet its own objectives.
Virtually anywhere there is a disaster and aid groups move in to try and help, you'll have people diverting resources, demaning payoffs, be seen to be supporting current government (even in the UK - remember the floods last year?) and so on.
Can't please everyone but can try and save lives or improve conditions in immediate need.
I take my hat off to StC for at least doing something.

And like starfish discussed in another thread, the charity can make all the difference to the individuals they are helping.

On the other hand I have to say I'm not happy with the idea that we should do nothing to help the Burmese on the grounds that eventually things will get so bad that they will stage a revolution. Save the Children seem to have been careful to restrict their aid to donations in kind rather than money.

Any kind of rebuttal that would satisfy StC's critics would presumably involve a denunciation of the Burmese government; which would probably mean they wouldn't be permitted to provide any aid in future.